VLN Cigarette: Difference between revisions

Line 14:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743520302516

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2698925

*" In this randomized clinical trial of 1250 smokers, immediate compared with gradual reduction to very low nicotine content cigarettes or with a control smoking group significantly reduced exposure (area under the concentration curve) to breath carbon monoxide (difference, 4.06 ppm and 3.38 ppm for immediate vs gradual reduction group and immediate reduction vs control group, respectively), acrolein (difference, 17% and 19%), and phenanthrene tetraol (difference, 12% and 14%); there were no significant differences between the gradual and control groups."

Line 19:

Line 23:

*~~Introduction:~~ Very Low Nicotine Content (VLNC) cigarettes might be useful as part of a tobacco control strategy, but relatively little is known about their acceptability as substitutes for regular cigarettes.

*"Very Low Nicotine Content (VLNC) cigarettes might be useful as part of a tobacco control strategy, but relatively little is known about their acceptability as substitutes for regular cigarettes."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20078491/

*"Unlike the 0.3 mg cigarettes, 0.05 mg cigarettes were not associated with compensatory smoking behaviors. Furthermore, the 0.05 mg cigarettes and nicotine lozenge were associated with reduced carcinogen exposure, nicotine dependence and product withdrawal scores. The 0.05 mg cigarette was associated with greater relief of withdrawal from usual brand cigarettes than the nicotine lozenge. The 0.05 mg cigarette led to a significantly higher rate of cessation than the 0.3 mg cigarette and a similar rate as nicotine lozenge."

* It appears that VLNCs work best given with nicotine lozenges, therefore why not just try nicotine lozenges, and cut out the burning plant materials?

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091743520302516
+https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2698925
+*"  In this randomized clinical trial of 1250 smokers, immediate compared with gradual reduction to very low nicotine content cigarettes or with a control smoking group significantly reduced exposure (area under the concentration curve) to breath carbon monoxide (difference, 4.06 ppm and 3.38 ppm for immediate vs gradual reduction group and immediate reduction vs control group, respectively), acrolein (difference, 17% and 19%), and phenanthrene tetraol (difference, 12% and 14%); there were no significant differences between the gradual and control groups."
@@ Line 19: / Line 23: @@
-*Introduction: Very Low Nicotine Content (VLNC) cigarettes might be useful as part of a tobacco control strategy, but relatively little is known about their acceptability as substitutes for regular cigarettes.
+*"Very Low Nicotine Content (VLNC) cigarettes might be useful as part of a tobacco control strategy, but relatively little is known about their acceptability as substitutes for regular cigarettes."
+https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20078491/
+*"Unlike the 0.3 mg cigarettes, 0.05 mg cigarettes were not associated with compensatory smoking behaviors. Furthermore, the 0.05 mg cigarettes and nicotine lozenge were associated with reduced carcinogen exposure, nicotine dependence and product withdrawal scores. The 0.05 mg cigarette was associated with greater relief of withdrawal from usual brand cigarettes than the nicotine lozenge. The 0.05 mg cigarette led to a significantly higher rate of cessation than the 0.3 mg cigarette and a similar rate as nicotine lozenge."
+* It appears that VLNCs work best given with nicotine lozenges, therefore why not just try nicotine lozenges, and cut out the burning plant materials?

VLN Cigarette: Difference between revisions

Navigation menu

Search